Nothing in your link addresses the issue of what nature the trees grew in. Therefore no correlation is possible with anything but this nature. Ha.

Rather obviously it starts in the present and extends into the past by the simple counting of annual rings.

The correlations are consistent and cross-referenced between several different methods.

As you say, "Therefore no correlation is possible with anything but this nature," and therefore it validates the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "former nature" during this time.

Ha.

And yet you have not challenged the correlations at all, you have provided no evidence of your fantasy "former nature" and no cause for anyone to think your assertions are worth the bandwidth you have wasted.

It counts rings as if they were all grown in this nature. Correlations follow accordingly....religion.

(1) you have said that the flood occurred in 4,500 years ago in your fantasy years, but that this translates to 70,000,000 years ago in actual scientific years. You seem to be confused which years you are using.

(2) you have not established any time frame for this fantasy "former nature" to occur, or any way to distinguish it from the current nature.

(3) you still haven't accounted for the C14 levels measured in the tree rings that correlate with the ages of the annual tree rings.

The issue is what the C14 means. If you blindly believe in a same nature in the past, then the meaning becomes one thing. If we admit we do not know the nature in the past you cannot attribute present nature meaning on the C14...or anything else.

When was the change you asked? Probably about the same time as the tower of Babel, in the days of Peleg.

Quite simply, the C14 levels are a measurable, verified quantity that is fact.

When the C14 levels for a specific tree ring count are the same for dendrochronologies around the world that too is a measurable, independently verified fact.

When the C14 levels correlated with tree ring ages form an exponential curve with predictable decreases the older the tree rings are, that too is a measurable, verified fact.

Tree rings form in a consistent pattern of growth for different seasons of the year. This too is a measurable, verified fact.

Variations in weather and climate patterns are shown by their effect on those growth patterns, with the rings formed today being noticeably wider than those of a decade or a century ago because of warmer climate. This too is a measurable, verified fact.

The tree rings also conform to historical facts, demonstrating accuracy as far back as history takes us -- this too is a measurable, verified fact.

Thus we know that both tree rings and C14 levels accurately measure age for the period covered independently by history:

This graph appears to start with year 2000 CE (rather than 1950). This adds 2050 BP (100 BCE) and 2650 BP (700 BCE) to the list of correlations of historical artifact to dendrochronological age by 14C content.

Then there is consilience with Egyptian history and the dating of various finds (artifacts), for example:

Note that this conversion to dendrochronological time does not depend on the calculation of 14C 'age' (which is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured amounts of 14C in the samples as a fraction of the 1950 standard amount), but to comparing the measured 14C/14C(1950CE) ratios to ones found in the tree rings to find the best match to the tree rings. Using 14C levels to match chronologies introduces an error due to the number of different rings that match those levels inside the +/-1σ margins of error.

So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology. This chronology extends back to 12,410 cal BP (before 1950), or 10,460 BCE, and ~40% of its length is consilient with documented historical events\artifacts.

This high consilience between these dendrochronologies and historical dates gives us high confidence in the accuracy and precision of these dendrochronologies.

Remember: The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement data sets if they are not measuring actual age?

These ages are all measurable, independently verified fact.

Meanwhile you are an old (scientific) age denier that has not provided a single explanation for a single one of these result.

You seems to have a personal fantasy concept that places a mythical flood at 4500 years ago in your fantasy time, but you then claim to correlate that with 70,000,000 years ago in scientifically documented and cross correlated time, by using some hocus pocus magical "former time" -- for which you have provided absolutely no means to distinguish from today. You have no measurable facts, and no independent verification for your fantasy -- it belongs to you alone.

When was the change you asked? Probably about the same time as the tower of Babel, in the days of Peleg.

A perfect example of an immeasurable, unverifiable bald assertion void of any factual basis. Note the total lack of specificity on time, the total lack of any means to detect such magic mysterious transformation and the lack of commitment ... because it is made up ad hoc hokum.

This also is another example of your confusion between your magic time 4500 year history with the actual scientific 70,000,000 year history -- it seems you keep trying to use both at the same time.

Perhaps you could try to provide us with a scale correlating your magical time frame with the actual scientific time frame.

It is a fact C14 exists, that is true, but as mentioned the issue is what it means. Without first proving a same state past, you cannot claim it means anything.

Yes, C14 levels change over time. The issue is in what nature do they change? We can start by looking at measurements you claim for the rings on a tree beyond the 4500 mark!!! Let's see the C14 correlation exactly there...as nowhere else really matters.

By the way I see you mentioned Egypt, so show us a way to date ancient Egypt that does not in any way involve present nature decay rates? Ha.

It is a fact C14 exists, that is true, but as mentioned the issue is what it means. ...

Because each ring has a slightly different C14 amount from the ones before and after it, what it means is that each ring forms either (1) with a different "pre-decayed" level or (2) that sufficient time has passed between ring formations that sufficient decay has occurred in that time (a year, say) to result in the levels seen today.

If (1), then please provide a mechanism to "pre-decay" the C14 in precisely the exponential pattern seen in the rings today.

If (2), AND you want it to happen in a shorter time period, then please provide (a) a mechanism to grow complete rings with precisely the annual pattern seen today, but within a shorter time-span, and (b) a mechanism to transition seamlessly to the annual pattern seen today, PLUS (c) a mechanism to accelerate the decay in the early days and then transition that to match what we see today.

Without even a hint of any of these mechanisms to have ever existed, what they mean is that any fact based rationally minded person will conclude that they represent annual rings and that the C14 levels validate that conclusion.

... Without first proving a same state past, you cannot claim it means anything.

You have it backwards, if you are going to make a claim that there was a different state in the past than in the present, then the onus is on YOU to prove your claim is something other that fantasy. You have failed to provide anything to support your fantasy so far.

ie - YOU need to prove that I'm wrong.

AND, curiously, I don't need to "prove" a same state in the past, because there is no evidence, cause or reason to even begin to think otherwise. Especially when the growth rings show a consistent pattern matching known annual growth rings today AND the C14 levels match the C14 decay curve for the annual count ages of the rings, to say nothing of the rest of the evidence in this thread.

All that needs to be done is to compare one to the other on the basis of evidence for and against, to show which is the rational logical choice.

That has been done in spades: there is a mountain of evidence for the past being similar to today (this thread provides a small portion of that evidence), and squat evidence for it being even minutely different.

We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms.

To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be.

The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.

Blathering about a different nature in the past in no way addresses the correlations.

By the way I see you mentioned Egypt, so show us a way to date ancient Egypt that does not in any way involve present nature decay rates?

Read the link (you can sign up for free access): "The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18)" ... where "Shaw (18) refers to :

The C14 pattern also could mean that a different nature existed in which C14 was not produced the same way or involve the same time. By the way did you show specifically the rings with the C14 to ring ratio for rings only beyond 4500 deep?

I do not need to prove your religion is wrong. I do not need to prove your same nature in the future and past is bogus. You need to prove it existed or you cannot use it in models!

Do tell us what Shaw uses to date Egypt! Ha. I can see why you only alluded to a link.

The C14 pattern also could mean that a different nature existed in which C14 was not produced the same way or involve the same time.

And if pigs could fly, a different nature could mean they wouldn't need wings.

What you are forgetting is (a) you have no evidence of a different nature (b) no means to test for a different nature and (c) -- most importantly -- that this fantasy cannot explain the correlation with the tree rings, including your fantasy concept of tree rings growing in days.

That this absolutely fails to explain the correlations is obvious because you have neither explained the actual tree ring counts nor the actual measured C14 amounts in those tree rings.

Made up fantasy is not evidence, nor is it argument that invalidates arguments based on evidence, all it amounts to is wishful thinking to fool yourself.

I do not need to prove your religion is wrong. I do not need to prove your same nature in the future and past is bogus. You need to prove it existed or you cannot use it in models!

Wrong.

You claim it is wrong, therefore you need to demonstrate/show why you think that it is wrong, else you are just spouting fantasy and wishful thinking. Curiously neither fantasy nor wishful thinking are scientific refutations of the correlations nor the methods used to determine age, ... it's just you fooling yourself with wishful thinking fantasy.

As long as there is no evidence of a different nature, there is no need to modify science that is based on the evidence of age, because science is based on evidence not fantasy.

Do tell us what Shaw uses to date Egypt! ....

It's readily available on line ... and any fool could look it up if truly interested ... for instance:

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Egyptian archaeology is the existence of a very large corpus of ancient written material (comprising texts in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic scripts), which allows the surviving material culture of the Pharaonic period (c.3100-312 BC) to be considered within a rich and diverse cognitive context that is not available for most other regions of Africa until comparatively recent times. ...

The names and relative dates of the various rulers and dynasties in the Pharaonic period derive from a number of textual sources. These sources include the Aegyptiaca, a history compiled by an Egyptian priest called Manetho in the early 3rd century (Wadell), and much earlier ‘king-lists’ that give the names and sequences of rulers as recorded on the walls of tombs and temples, but also in papyri (such as the Nineteenth Dynasty document known as the Royal Turin Canon) and elsewhere, such as the list in the Wadi Hammamat greywacke quarries; Redford (1986). It is usually presumed that Manetho himself used king-lists of these types as his sources.

Egypt’s ‘traditional’ absolute chronology tends to rely on complex webs of textual references, combining such elements as names, dates, and genealogical information into an overall historical framework that is more reliable in some periods than in others (e.g. Kitchen 1991). The two most important documents for assigning absolute dates to the traditional Egyptian chronological framework are two records of the ‘heliacal rising’ of the dog-star Sirius, one dating to the late Twelfth Dynasty, the other to the early Eighteenth (Krauss 1985). By assigning absolute dates to these documents, Egyptologists have been able to extrapolate a set of absolute dates for the whole of the Pharaonic period, on the basis of records of the lengths of reign of the other kings of the Middle and New Kingdoms (e.g. Hornung et al. (2006). Because of its well-respected traditional chronological framework, Egyptology was one of the ﬁrst archaeological disciplines to beneﬁt from radiocarbon dating, since, in the late 1940s, a series of well-dated Egyptian artefacts were used as bench-marks to assess the reliability of the newly invented radiocarbon technique (Libby 1955). The subsequent recognition of the necessity of calibrating radiocarbon years in order to anchor them in actual time (Shaw 1985; Hassan and Robinson 1987) still left concerns that the available radiocarbon dates for Egypt and Nubia sometimes appear to diﬀer signiﬁcantly from the conventional chronology (Bonani et al. 2001). However, a recent systematic attempt to radiocarbon date samples of known age (through either their archaeological context or associated textual data) has been largely successful in demonstrating good synchronization between radiocarbon dates and the conventional chronology (Dee et al. 2010).

The astute reader will note that (A) the Old Kingdom -- the time frame pertinent to this issue -- is well within the Pharaonic/Dynastic Period that is dated absolutely by historical documents and astronomical information, and (B) that these absolute chronological dates were used to calibrate the radiocarbon dating ... rather than radiocarbon dating being used to date these periods.

... I can see why you only alluded to a link.

Sadly, for you, links are provided for interested people to further their education and knowledge, so that people with a real interest in the issue can follow them, the way footnotes and reference lists are provided in professional papers. Not following them shows a lack of interest and a preference for ignorance.

If you followed the links and read them, then you likely wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself with silly comments.

...Ha....

Yes, funny how you keep saying this when you are then shown to be ignorant and uniformed on the issue.

Perhaps you think you made a significant point, but it's just a balloon full of hot air that is easily popped.

Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually.

Well, if the Bible says that the year is only 360 days long when it is actually in solid observable measurable fact(and well inside your fictitious "fishbowl") 365.2425 days long, then that proves conclusively and irrefutably that the Bible is in error! And according to fundamentalist Christian belief, finding even a single error in the Bible proves that the entire Bible is wrong.

If I were CAPT Kirk and you were NOMAD, this would be the point where you would self-destruct ("Fulfill your prime directive!" "ERROR! ERROR! MUST STERILIZE! MUST STERILIZE!" from The Changeling).

Thank you very much for proving the Bible wrong. Now maybe you idiot fundamentalists will finally re-evaluate your ridiculous and self-destructive belief that the Bible being wrong is proof that God does not exist.

Now you resort to king lists for dates!!!!?? Hilarious. They admit they are not good for dates. There are spirits listed as early leaders in Egypt. Offering the king lists we now have to believe in the spooks!!? This is science?

Face it, you have one way only, the religious same nature in the past belief based so called radioactive decay dates. So much for your informed links claims.

As for any claim of any nature in the past, including the one you use...forget about it. Prove it first or it is a belief.

Nice to see the positions drawn clearly in the sand. I believe science is wrong and that a year will be 360 days, and that it also was in the early part of history of man. I seem to recall other civilizations also used this, no? If so...the evidence mounts.

Now you resort to king lists for dates!!!!?? Hilarious. They admit they are not good for dates. There are spirits listed as early leaders in Egypt. Offering the king lists we now have to believe in the spooks!!? This is science?

The chronology developed by Ian Shaw used the available evidence, and yes part of it is the kings list, but only where it can be validated, corrected, for periods where kings overlapped, and this limits it to the Pharaonic Period (c.3000–332 BC), and not to the "early leaders" of the pre-Pharaonic Period where spirits are listed. But it also used validation with the dates for the rising of the dog-star Sirius:

quote: ... The two most important documents for assigning absolute dates to the traditional Egyptian chronological framework are two records of the ‘heliacal rising’ of the dog-star Sirius, one dating to the late Twelfth Dynasty, the other to the early Eighteenth (Krauss 1985). By assigning absolute dates to these documents, Egyptologists have been able to extrapolate a set of absolute dates for the whole of the Pharaonic period, on the basis of records of the lengths of reign of the other kings of the Middle and New Kingdoms (e.g. Hornung et al. (2006). ...

The chronology was so well developed and accepted as valid that it was used to correct the early radiometric data and start the process of calibration of C14 dating.

The issue at hand here is the correlation of C14 levels from artifacts in Old Kingdom tombs with the oak tree ring chronology. The Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) is well within the Pharaonic Period, as it follows the Early Dynastic Period (3000-2686 BC) with it's absolute dates.

You asked

Message 861: By the way I see you mentioned Egypt, so show us a way to date ancient Egypt that does not in any way involve present nature decay rates?

These questions are answered. C14 was not used by Shaw, was not used to establish the Egyptian chronology for the period covering the artifacts in question, where their measured C14 levels correlate with measured C14 levels of the oak tree ring chronology, validating those ages.

Your question is answered.

Your task is to explain these correlations if they are in error. You have not done that, you have not even started to do that. Posting nonsense assertions does not explain the correlations.